I was reared as a Protestant Christian, so naturally I take my ethics from that source. I retain respect for the Church where I was christened. However since I became older I understand that The Bible is not the only or the best source of ethics. If God gave us reason, should we not use it to seek out truth ? Or do you think that human reason is the forbidden fruit?Well, I don't know a way to interpret, "Thou shalt ..." and "Thou shalt not ..." other than as INSTRUCTIONS, and I don't believe you are having any problem with that, either.Belinda wrote:I understand that you, Enegue, have solved the problem of existential angst by referring to The Bible as if it were a map or book of instructions.
Perhaps, you just don't agree that the instructions in the Bible are the best means of apprehending abundant life over generations. Maybe it's just a matter of pride, and you don't think anyone should dictate how you should or shouldn't behave, even if it is in your best interest - you know, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice? I know not the LORD, neither will I do as he asks." (to paraphrase a famous Biblical antagonist).
Cheers,
Why is man supposed to be evil?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13782
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
-
- Posts: 1004
- Joined: March 17th, 2013, 3:38 am
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
If they are YOUR WORDS, then why have you suggested that I said them. What sort of crazy reasoning would compel you to do that.Neznac wrote:enegue said:
Nezac. How has my "disgust" manifest itself? When have I condemned "homosexuality"? You are attributing things to my words that are just not there.
Well then, I'd be most pleased if I found that your disgust was not there. You don't have to verbally condemn homosexuality, but it becomes plainly obvious when you make statements that go like, "monogamous heterosexual sex is the only healthy and natural form of sexual relations." Those are my words, ...
No, you don't remember those expressions at all because I've never used them. They have been manufactured by you to give the impression of inferred disgust.Neznac wrote:... but I recall that you went on and on about STD statistics and AIDS being the consequence of non-monogamous and non-heterosexual activities
Again, if you DON'T RECALL an expression of outright disgust, and you have to manufacture statements to show inferred disgust, then all you are doing is trampling all over your own INTEGRITY.Neznac wrote:... although I don't recall you explicitly expressing outright disgust, the underlying inferences are there.
You KNOW it was based on health concerns because I drew your attention to it.Neznac wrote:THen I recall in the "Proof of Creationism" thread you mention in post #491You would expect human DNA to be degenerating at an accelerate rate because of Man's proclivity for degenerate sexual practices and his disdain of monogamous heterosexual sex. I feel a sense of disgust in that kind of remark, but perhaps you honestly meant nothing like that?
Neznac, if I haven't shown evidence of condemnation and disgust in nearly 5 years of anonymous forum activity and 1800 posts, then the chances are fairly high that I don't express it anywhere.Neznac wrote:As far as your mentions of 'homosexuality' or 'sodomy' are concerned, well again you might not have expressed condemnation or disgust here on this forum, but ...
Yeah, I can see how YOU might think that way, but for me, it was simply preparation for the possibility of being misquoted. You did do that, didn't you?Neznac wrote:Nevertheless, your search for your own words on these subjects almost seems to indicate that perhaps you were worried that you "let one slip" and so you checked your posts out thoroughly!
After I read your reply, I did do another search to verify what you quoted me as saying. I found a post that contained a rather scathing response from me to a comment of yours about Mrs God. LOL. I wouldn't want to keep anything hidden from you.
Cheers,
enegue
- Neznac
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
I guess that condemnation and expressions of disgust come in various shades, here are some examples of the sorts of statements I was making reference to concerning your emotional reactions to certain human behaviours:enegue wrote:No, you don't remember those expressions at all because I've never used them. They have been manufactured by you to give the impression of inferred disgust.Neznac wrote:... but I recall that you went on and on about STD statistics and AIDS being the consequence of non-monogamous and non-heterosexual activities
enegue wrote: (in Post #10 from "You are a liar”)
Don't you think education should also include esteeming monogamous heterosexuality as the lifestyle that is of greatest benefit to the nation. There is a meme infecting the minds of modern man - Don't esteem any behaviour as superior, because it's the same as saying my behaviour is inferior.. Well I've been inoculated against such memes and will give dispassionate and logical reasons, when I'm invited, for the things I believe are clearly in the public interest.
enegue wrote: (in Post #5, "You are a liar,…")
If Man had a heart for his fellow man, we would be doing much better at balancing the books. For example, we would be advertising monogamous heterosexuality as the safe haven from disease and the means by which we can build strong and healthy nations. We don't do this, though. We actually esteem other sexual lifestyles as okay, which means, innocent young people are going to fall into disease invested waters and be drawn away into the deep where sharks and other predators (you know, like those who think paedophilia is okay) live.
I guess that from your perspective these don't appear to show condemnation nor disgust, but as you said there, you are immune to that meme.enegue wrote: (in Post #170, "Internet Atheism”)
BTW, "good mouthing" monogamous heterosexuality is not the same as "bad mouthing" other lifestyles, that's just another meme that infests your thinking. If ideals are not held up by someone then they will totally disappear as options for people to choose. Good Lord! That's probably the purpose of the meme.
I've tried to bring you out into the sunshine so the clear light of day can destroy the meme "sexuality - all lifestyles are equally valid" that has infected your mind, but you seem to be quite happy to stay in the cave. Coming out into the sunshine will also destroy other memes that infest your thinking as well, like the one that caused you to state, "Are you saying that we should kill everyone who's not considered 'normal'? You must be a christian.".
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
AND ... I will give dispassionate and logical reasons, WHEN I'M INVITED, for the things I believe are clearly in the public interest.Neznac wrote:I guess that from your perspective these don't appear to show condemnation nor disgust, but as you said there, you are immune to that meme.
Cheers,
enegue
-
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
I suppose it must be tough for people who believe so much in freewill to accept that sexual orientation may not be a matter of choice after all.enegue wrote:AND ... I will give dispassionate and logical reasons, WHEN I'M INVITED, for the things I believe are clearly in the public interest.Neznac wrote:I guess that from your perspective these don't appear to show condemnation nor disgust, but as you said there, you are immune to that meme.
Cheers,
enegue
- Neznac
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Whenever someone offers an alternative moral prescription that is not in line with or not conforming to your biblical formulations, you automatically assume that there is some negative, unsavoury, or even indecent force or desire driving that person's thinking. Here you figure that because Belinda doesn't agree with your "monogamous heterosexuality rules" ethic, that she must be possessed by pride and that she has a problem with following instructions! Maybe she used a different set of very good and human values to come to her conclusions and that these might be more valuable to humanity in the long run when compared to your ancient principles. You automatically assume that the other person did something wrong in their reasoning because they arrived at a different conclusion than "this is what God said."enegue wrote:Perhaps, you just don't agree that the instructions in the Bible are the best means of apprehending abundant life over generations. Maybe it's just a matter of pride, and you don't think anyone should dictate how you should or shouldn't behave, even if it is in your best interest . . .
-- Updated June 12th, 2014, 12:23 am to add the following --
Very true Vijay. Another crime against humanity caused by that religious idea of a freewill. The highway of morality is strewn with the dead bodies of those who have fallen victim to the wreckless driving of the freewill crowd. It's almost like a massacre when all the various mishaps are taken together!Vijaydevani wrote:I suppose it must be tough for people who believe so much in freewill to accept that sexual orientation may not be a matter of choice after all.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Neznac, you are LOOKING FOR REASONS to justify your feelings towards me. Let me break the news: you are going to be 100% successful.Neznac wrote:Here's another example, enegue. It's not condemnation nor disgust exactly, but it's patronizing and arrogant.
It's that pesky third aspect of being I've tried to tell you about - the heart. It's non-rational because it doesn't operate on logic, it just seeks what it desires. You are DISTURBED by my belief in a different beginning to the Universe and you are seeking relief from your discontent by trying to collect evidence (or manufacture it, if it can't be found), to prove to yourself (and others) that your feelings are justified.
In some cases, yes, I do. Not an INDECENT force, though, but definitely an OPPOSING force.Neznac wrote:Whenever someone offers an alternative moral prescription that is not in line with or not conforming to your biblical formulations, you automatically assume that there is some negative, unsavoury, or even indecent force or desire driving that person's thinking.
Neznac, you have lost it here. It seems YOUR brain is preoccupied by sexuality and that idea is seeping into everything of mine that you read.Neznac wrote:... you figure that because Belinda doesn't agree with your "monogamous heterosexuality rules" ethic, that she must be possessed by pride and that she has a problem with following instructions!
Belinda said, "I understand that you, Enegue, have solved the problem of existential angst by referring to The Bible as if it were a map or book of instructions.", and the quote of mine you use at the beginning of your post was part of my response to THAT comment - totally UNRELATED to "monogamous heterosexuality".
The effort you are putting in to justify your feelings toward me, won't pay off. You will ALWAYS find things to feed them, but they will NEVER bring you relief.
Cheers,
enegue
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Apologies for butting in again here on an Enegue <> Neznac exchange, but I thought that the conversation leading to this quote is worth exploring more.In some cases, yes, I do. Not an INDECENT force, though, but definitely an OPPOSING force.
Enegue: As you know, I've been commenting recently on things quite similar to what Neznac says here. Like Neznac, I have portrayed it as an unwillingness on your part to regard moral positions that differ from your own as being held in good faith and not for reasons of personal selfishness. Because that is what it often looks like.
However, I would take the above quote to be simply a statement of your evident commitment to what is sometimes called "moral absolutism" as opposed to "moral relativism". It seems to me that this quote is saying that people who disagree with your moral position may not be consciously intending to be evil, but that it is nevertheless inevitable that evil consequences will flow from their position. There is "right" and there is "wrong" and, fundamentally, the question of whether a given moral position falls into one of these two categories is not open to any negotiation or compromise.
If this is the case, then I presume you use the expression "OPPOSING force" to signify that the people who have moral disagreements with you are unwittingly in the grip of some kind of external agent which is itself evil.
Is this fair? If not, could you explain this concept of an "OPPOSING force"?
- Neznac
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Totally correct on that one enegue. I had typed that "monogamous heterosexuality" bit in temporarliy and was supposed to go back and reread your exchange with Belinda before submitting, then I would have replaced it with the appropriate issue, but I was pressed for time and didn't practice due dilligence and never replaced it with "existential angst.'"enegue wrote:Neznac, you have lost it here. It seems YOUR brain is preoccupied by sexuality and that idea is seeping into everything of mine that you read.
But aside from that unfortunate glitch in my post, do you at least see how you anticipate the worst motivations in people when you know that they reject "the bible?" Like bringing in those who practice pedophilia as somehow equal to those who practice anything other than monogamous heterosexual sex. (There's my brain back to the issue of sex!)
-- Updated June 12th, 2014, 12:40 pm to add the following --
Thanks for jumping in Steve3007. Yes that's more precisely what I was trying to get at, but you have expressed these concerns more exactly than I could have.Steve3007 wrote: As you know, I've been commenting recently on things quite similar to what Neznac says here. Like Neznac, I have portrayed it as an unwillingness on your part to regard moral positions that differ from your own as being held in good faith and not for reasons of personal selfishness. Because that is what it often looks like.
However, I would take the above quote to be simply a statement of your evident commitment to what is sometimes called "moral absolutism" as opposed to "moral relativism". It seems to me that this quote is saying that people who disagree with your moral position may not be consciously intending to be evil, but that it is nevertheless inevitable that evil consequences will flow from their position. There is "right" and there is "wrong" and, fundamentally, the question of whether a given moral position falls into one of these two categories is not open to any negotiation or compromise.
If this is the case, then I presume you use the expression "OPPOSING force" to signify that the people who have moral disagreements with you are unwittingly in the grip of some kind of external agent which is itself evil.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Well, I don't believe they are BEING evil at all. I've been trying for some time now to convince Vijaydevani that EVIL is not something Man IS, but a STATE OF BEING in which he EXISTS. I tried to illustrate this with a swimming pool analogy: the idea that EVIL is the condition of the water in which man swims.Steve3007 wrote:However, I would take the above quote to be simply a statement of your evident commitment to what is sometimes called "moral absolutism" as opposed to "moral relativism". It seems to me that this quote is saying that people who disagree with your moral position may not be consciously intending to be evil, but that it is nevertheless inevitable that evil consequences will flow from their position. There is "right" and there is "wrong" and, fundamentally, the question of whether a given moral position falls into one of these two categories is not open to any negotiation or compromise.
People just do STUFF in pursuit of the things they see as PROFIT. In most cases, they don't give consideration to the impact of what they are doing to the state of their environment - polluting the water, as it were. Trying to open their eyes to the long-term affect on the environment of the STUFF they do is like taking away their SOMA.
Now, I'm not trying to demean anyone's intellect by saying that, I'm just trying to point out THE POWER of the gift God has given us. Some people by nature DO give consideration to the impact of what they are doing, and DO get involved in education programs of one sort of another, but they DON'T HAVE POWER to move people to WANT TO behave as the ought. How do you change a person's heart? How do you rewrite the list of profitable things etched in stone at the core of their being?
Another analogy that just came to mind is from the movie Gremlins, when the old Chinese guy says at the end, "You deal with Mogwai just like your society deals with all of nature's gifts. You do not understand! You are not ready.". Man is not ready until he can recognise the POWER of the gift he's been given. This recognition will not come of its own accord, as St Paul tells us:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
-- Ephesians 2:8
No, not at all. They are in the grip of the gift that God gave them to PURSUE THEIR OWN PATH. It's like a magnet, or maybe an EM rope, that draws them along in the direction of their desires.Steve3007 wrote:If this is the case, then I presume you use the expression "OPPOSING force" to signify that the people who have moral disagreements with you are unwittingly in the grip of some kind of external agent which is itself evil.
Cheers,
enegue
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
I agree with what you've said about these three categories of behaviour:Well, I don't believe they are BEING evil at all...
1. When some people do things in pursuit of what they see as profit there may well be unintended bad consequences.
2. But some people do take profit in giving consideration to the impact of what they are doing for future generations.
3. When such people attempt to persuade others that there is profit in doing good for future generations, they are not always successful.
These seem to be three of the points that you made in that last post, in addition to the points that you made about the people in category 1 not being evil, but existing in a state of evil.
But I also think that it is possible for two different people to both see profit in giving consideration to the future impact of what they are doing, and to both regard it as profitable to do things which will benefit future generations, but to still disagree as to what to do.
That is the point on which we seem to differ. I believe that it is possible for two people to have a debate as to what is the best course of action for the benefit of future generations, to disagree, and to both have a genuine desire to do good and to have arguments that are worth serious consideration. I still haven't spotted anything anywhere in your words to suggest that you agree with me there.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still seem to be suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you as to what courses of action are the best for securing the well-being of future generations falls into category 1. You don't appear to think that it's possible for somebody to fall into category 2 and to also disagree with you as to what is the best thing to do in order to realize this form of altruistic profit.
This is the feature that seems to me to have run through very many of your posts. As I've said before, you're essentially saying that anyone who disagrees with your views on morality does so for selfish reasons. You've made it clear that you don't necessarily blame them for their selfishness. You've said that they are simply in the grip of the gift that God gave them to pursue their own path. But they are, nevertheless, being selfish in the sense that they are not taking profit in the future well-being of mankind.
As I've said, I do not agree that this is the only reason why somebody might differ from you on a moral issue. And, if you take this position, then I can't see how it's possible for you to have any kind of genuine debate about morality - about the courses of action which are morally right and wrong - with anyone. Because, rather than considering the pros and cons of their arguments, you will always tend to simply consign them to category 1, above. You will always regard them as not wanting to behave as they ought.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: September 4th, 2009, 8:18 am
- Favorite Philosopher: God
- Location: Australia
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
I addressed this point in my last post, but you appear to have missed it.Steve3007 wrote:... I also think that it is possible for two different people to both see profit in giving consideration to the future impact of what they are doing, and to both regard it as profitable to do things which will benefit future generations, but to still disagree as to what to do.
Some people by nature DO give consideration to the impact of what they are doing, and DO get involved in education programs of one sort of another, but they DON'T HAVE POWER to move people to WANT TO behave as the ought. How do you change a person's heart? How do you rewrite the list of profitable things etched in stone at the core of their being?
This is where I see you, Steve. You have been blessed by a favourable nature and favourable nurture according to a Judeao-Christian ethic, but NONE of it gives you the POWER to move people to WANT TO do the things YOU consider profitable, not even your OWN CHILDREN.
GOD is in the business of changing hearts, and we haven't the foggiest notion what that will take. You have chosen your own path and I have chosen mine. Mine includes a solution to how you go about changing hearts, and as far as I can see, yours precludes you from even considering it.
I don't think I have ever done that, Neznac, but I can see how you are drawn to the conclusion. It is exactly how some Christians are drawn to conclude that atheists who make reference to the Inquisition or the Crusades think that such events are the model of Christian behaviour.Neznac wrote:... do you at least see how you anticipate the worst motivations in people when you know that they reject "the bible?" Like bringing in those who practice pedophilia as somehow equal to those who practice anything other than monogamous heterosexual sex. (There's my brain back to the issue of sex!)
Here is a post I made in a discussion with eyesofastranger in the topic "Is God Alive?" that demonstrates why it becomes necessary to identify such behaviour. Not wishing to beat him over the head with a stick, I let go of the discussion when I could see he wasn't listening (or, at least, giving the impression he wasn't listening).
Cheers,
enegue
- Neznac
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Well why would you bring up sharks and pedophiles when describing how we don't prefer monogamous heterosexuality but rather esteem other sexual lifestyles as okay, as in:enegue wrote:I don't think I have ever done that, Neznac, but I can see how you are drawn to the conclusion.
Why would you stoop to that level of denigration unless you are oblivious as to how non-monogamous and non-heterosexual persons might interpret such a statement? Don't you see any sense of human understanding and compassion in allowing individuals to decide on their own relationship and sexuality preferences, as long as they are not hurting anyone? You seem to be expressing the view that only a strict monogamous heterosexual lifestyle practices no harm and that all the rest are guilty of harming others, even children, by practicing their inclinations. Don't you see any harm in culturally "forcing" a lesbian to pretend to be a heterosexual and live the life of one which would be a case of causing harm to herself?enegue wrote: (in Post #5, "You are a liar,…") If Man had a heart for his fellow man, we would be doing much better at balancing the books. For example, we would be advertising monogamous heterosexuality as the safe haven from disease and the means by which we can build strong and healthy nations. We don't do this, though. We actually esteem other sexual lifestyles as okay, which means, innocent young people are going to fall into disease invested waters and be drawn away into the deep where sharks and other predators (you know, like those who think paedophilia is okay) live.
enegue wrote: It is exactly how some Christians are drawn to conclude that atheists who make reference to the Inquisition or the Crusades think that such events are the model of Christian behaviour.
I think this is a gross exaggeration of what some Christians are drawn to conclude about atheists. That being said apparently you do not believe that the Inquisition and the Crusades are in any way models of Christian behaviour, while I, on the other hand, understand that these are indeed particular and legitimate ways of expressing Christian faith and belief where Old Testament theology still has some sway. This is much in line with my statement that it is sometimes the Christian thing to kill those who they don't consider to be normal, as you requoted in this post! How this shocks you is difficult to comprehend as your "rose-coloured version of Christendom" seems like a blatant denial of the history of Christianity. Perhaps you have indeed managed to reinterpret your religion so that all the obnoxious bits are removed or permanently erased, and I guess as long as it doesn't harm anyone (except for a lesbian being assaulted by her husband every now and then), your version of Christianity might be the best one invented to date!
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
Sorry, but this doesn't address what I said at all. What you appear to be saying here is this:I addressed this point in my last post, but you appear to have missed it. Some people by nature DO give consideration to the impact of what they are doing, and DO get involved in education programs of one sort of another, but they DON'T HAVE POWER to move people to WANT TO behave as the ought. How do you change a person's heart? How do you rewrite the list of profitable things etched in stone at the core of their being?
Some people act for the common good and try to teach others to act for the common good. But they don't have the power to persuade those others to act for the common good.
Possibly true, but irrelevant to what I said. What I said was simply this: Different people disagree as to what constitutes "acting for the common good". Different people disagree as to what constitutes "considering the impact of what one is doing". You seem to have a curious mental block in not being able to understand this simple idea. It's almost as if you simply cannot comprehend the idea that there might be genuinely different arguments as to how people ought to behave in order to promote well-being for future generations and that both arguments have merits. I don't know why. It's very strange.
You then go on to claim that you have in fact found a way to persuade people to act for the common good and that I have not. You appear to claim that my "path" (what you consider my path to be, I'm not sure) stops me from trying to persuade others to act as I think that they ought, for the common good:
Again, maybe true, maybe not. (Judging by your success rate at persuading people on this site, I'm inclined to doubt it.) But, again, irrelevant to what I said.You have chosen your own path and I have chosen mine. Mine includes a solution to how you go about changing hearts, and as far as I can see, yours precludes you from even considering it.
What I said was: We have disagreements as to what acts are conducive to the common good.
---
I'll try again, in the form of a simple question:
Person A behaves as he ought, gives consideration to the impact of his actions on others and acts so as to promote the well-being of future generations.
Person B behaves as he ought, gives consideration to the impact of his actions on others and acts so as to promote the well-being of future generations.
Do you believe that it is still possible for person A and person B to disagree as to the correct courses of action?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023